Quality in Cancer Diagnosis
Open accessAbstract
Improving the quality of oncologic pathology diagnosis is immensely important as the overwhelming majority of the approximately 1.6 million patients who will be diagnosed with cancer in 2010 have their diagnoses established through the pathologic interpretation of a tissue sample. Millions more patients have tissue samples obtained to rule out cancer and do not have cancer. The majority of studies on the quality of oncologic pathology diagnoses have focused on patient safety and have documented a variety of causes of error that occur in the clinical and pathology laboratory testing phases of diagnostic testing. The reported frequency of a diagnostic error made by oncologic pathology depends on several factors, such as definitions and detection methods, and ranges from 1% to 15%. The large majority of diagnostic errors do not result in severe harm, although mild to moderate harm in the form of additional testing or diagnostic delays occurs in up to 50% of errors. Clinical practitioners play an essential role in error reduction through several avenues such as effective test ordering, providing accurate and pertinent clinical information, procuring high-quality specimens, providing timely follow-up on test results, effectively communicating on potentially discrepant diagnoses, and advocating second opinions on the pathology diagnosis in specific situations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In cancer diagnosis, such as well-differentiated liposarcoma, inconsistent application of diagnostic criteria across institutions and among pathologists results in significant variability in interpretation and diagnosis, and these issues often remain unnoticed without secondary reviews.
“This issue is also present in cancer diagnosis, such as with well-differentiated liposarcoma. The inconsistent application of diagnostic criteria across institutions and among pathologists results in significant variability in interpretation and diagnosis, and these issues often remain unnoticed without secondary reviews [159].”
From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [159]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 217 · Cited by 77
- Authors
- Raab, S. S., & Grzybicki, D. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Colorado Denver (US)
- Rocky Vista University (US)
- Venue
- CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-05-01
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 139-165
- ISSN
- 0007-9235 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2067857835
- Cited by
- 77
- References
- 217
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 4.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
- Keywords
- diagnostic errors, patient safety, delayed diagnosis, test ordering, sample quality, second opinion
- MeSH terms
- Diagnostic Errors, Humans, Mass Screening, Medical Oncology, Neoplasms, Pathology, Clinical, Professional Competence, Quality of Health Care, Risk Factors
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review